QBfficeof tip !Zlttornep@enera
&ate of Ptexae
DAN MORALES
ATTORNEYGENERAL June 2, 1994
Honorable Carl E. Lewis Opinion No. DM-294
Nueas County Attorney
Nueces County Courthouse Re: What information a law enfomement
901 Leopard agency is authoriaed to give to a public school
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401-3680 district or private school under article 15.27 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (RQ-628)
Dear Mr. Lewis:
You ask us to advise you of the amount of detail that is authorized in a notification
-fan “arrest or detention” of a student under Code of Crhninal Procedure article 15.27,
hich was added by the Seventy-third Legislature. See Acts 1993,73d Leg., ch. 461, 8 1.
Subsections (a) and (e)(l) of article 15.27 provide as follows:
(a) A Jaw enforcement agency that arrests or takes into custody
as provided by Chapter 52, Family Code, an individual who the
agency knows or believes is enrolled as a student in a public prinuny
or secondary school, for an offense listed in Subsection (h) of this
article, shall orally notify the superintendent or a person designated
by the superintendent in the school district in which the student is
enrolled or believed to be enrolled of that arrest or detention within
24 hours a&r the arrest or detention, or on the next school day.
Within seven days after the date the oral notice is given, the law
enforcement agency shah mail written notification, marked
“PERSONAL and CONFJDENTL&” on the maiiiig envelope, to
the superintendent or the person designated by the superintendent.
The written notification must have the following printed on its face in
large, bold letters:
“WARNING: The information contained in this notice is
intended only to inform appropriate school personnel of an arrest
or detention of a student believed to be enrolled in this school.
An arrest or detention should not be construed as proof that the
student is guilty. Guilt is determined in a court of law. THE
INFORMATION CONTAJNED IN THIS NOTICE IS
CONFIDENTIAL!”
.
p. 1562
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 2 (DM-294)
(e)(l) A law enforcement agency that arrests or detains an
individual that the law enforcement agency knows or believes is
enrolled as a student in a private primary or secondary school shall
make the oral and written notifications described by Subsection (a) or
this article to the principal or a school employee designated by the
principal of the school in which the student is enrolled.
Although the statute does not specify the amount of information that is authorized,
we are of the opinion that the legislature intended to authorize the communication of all
information that will enable the school official to “take the precautions necessary to
prevent tinther violence in the school,” Code Crim. Proc. art. 1527(g), and to further
educational purposes and protect students and personnel at the school, see id.art.
15.27(d). We do not agree that the legislature intended the narrow interpretation of the
statute that you inform us is put forth by some persons: that article 15.27 permits only the
communication that a particular student has been arrested or detained, without any tkrther
explanation such as the nature of the alleged offense or the identity of an alleged victim
who is a classmate of the arrested student.
We reach our conclusion by analyzing the statute as a court would. “In
interpreting a statute, a court shah diligently attempt to ascertain legislative intent and
shall consider at all times the old law, the evil, and the remedy.” Gov’t Code 8 312.005.
In construing a statute, whether or not the statute is considered
ambiguous on its face, a court may consider among other matters
the:
(1) object sought to be attained;
(2) circumstances under which the statute was enacted;
(3)legislativehisto1y;
(4)common law or former statutory provisions, including laws
on the same or similar subjects;
(5) consequences of a particular construction .
Id.$311.023,
According to the bill analysis for the Seventy-third Legislature’s House Bill 23,
which added article 15.27 to the Code of Criminal Procedure,
[c]ontidentiality laws currently do not allow police and school
officials to share information concerning crimes in which students are
involved. During public hearings held by the House Subcommittee
on Gangs, police and school officials asked that the wnfidentiality
p. 1563
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 3 (DM-294)
laws be changed to allow the sharing of information in order to
prevent future violence.
House Comm. on Urban Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 23,73d Leg. (1993). The bill analysis
thus indicates that crime in the schools was the evil within the legislature’s contemplation.
The analysis also indicates the legislature’s recognition that the old law limited
wmmunications between law enforcement agencies and schools regarding criminal
activity, with the result that the schools were unable to take appropriate measures to
protect students and employees.
The old law hindered efforts to deter school crime because. it prevented law
enforcement authorities Tom reporting to a school that there was probable cause to
believe that one or more students had wmmitted a serious crime and therefore might pose
a threat to the school environment.
Both police and school officials reported that gangs would fight off-
campus, then, unknown to school officials, rival gang members
would be in the same classroom the following day, greatly increasing
the potential for violence.
Id. Before House Bill 23 amended it, section 51.14 of the Family Code prohibited the
public disclosure of the contents of law enforcement records relating to delinquency of a
child except to the juvenile wurt having jurisdiction of the child, an attorney for a party in
the juvenile-wurt proceeding, or law enforcement officers when needed to perform their
duties. Fam. Code 9 5 1.14(d) Historical & Statutory Notes. The schools therefore were
denied access to information that would enable them to take precautions to prevent
disruption or violence.
The old law also hindered efforts to deter school crime because it discouraged the
schools from reporting to law enforcement agencies that serious crimes involving students
had occurred on campus, with the result that “the juvenile’s record of violence [wa]s not
completely known by the court which w[ould] decide punishment or rehabilitation.”
House Comm. on Urban Affairs, Bill Analysis, H.B. 23, 73d Leg. Apparently, school
officials were reluctant to report suspicions of criminal activity at the schools because they
feared being held liable for defamation. House Bill 23 added to the Education Code a new
section 2 1.303. See Acts 1993, 73d Leg., ch. 461, 8 2. This section, among other things,
requires school principals or their designees to notify local law enforcement authorities if
they have reasonable grounds to believe that certain criminal activities are occurring on
school property or at school-related activities. r See Educ. Code $ 21.303(a). Section
21.303 also immunizes from civil damages persons making reports in good faith under that
section. See id $21.303(e).
‘Merely
reporting
sospdedcriminalactivity
Ly stndents
doesnotimplicate
thefederal
Family
Educational
Rights
and Privacy
Act of 1974,20 U.S.C.8 1232g(“FERF’A”).
FERF’Agovernsthe
availability
of“education
records.”
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 4 (DM-294)
Therefore, the purpose of House Bii 23, as stated in the bill analysis, was “[t]o
allow police and school officials to share information about drug crimes, reckless conduct,
the malting of terroristic threats, weapons crimes, and gang-related crimes, in which
students are involved.” We believe that to tklSll this purpose, the statute should be
interpreted as authorizing notitication of all the circumstances surroundmg an arrest or
detention that would be relevant to the consideration of necessary precautions to protect
students and employees and prevent disruption of school activities.
The committee-hearing statements of the author and the sponsor of House Bill 23
support a broad reading of the notification provisions in accordance with the purpose
stated in the bii analysis. In a public hearing of the House Committee on Urban A&irs,
Representative de la Gatza, the author, explained the scope. of the provisions in response
to a question as follows:
Q: When the school is notified that a student has a potential
legal problem, then you are providing that information for
educational purposes. In the testimony that came up in the hearings,
what hinds of suggestions were made for those “educational
purposes”?
A: Well, what they’re talking about is-when you use the phrase
“educational purposes”-they’re talking more along the lines of
informing the school officials that this particular person, who is a
juvenile, who is in the classroom, has wmmitted a crime, perhaps
against a. .person in the same school-usually that happens; it’s
someone that they know-or has been charged with a crime dealing
with the delivery of narcotics, of wntrokd substances. . The
purpose of this is to inform the school so they can provide a safer
enviromnent for the students in the class, and the teachers. And if
that student is near or around the person that he or she has assaulted,
them you do take steps to remove that threat so there’s no
wntinuation of the threat.
Hearings on H.B. 23 Before the House Comm. on Urban Affairs, 73d Leg. (Feb. 16,
1993) (tape available from House Video/Audio Services). In the same vein, the sponsor,
Senator Shelley, answered a question as follows during a public hearing of the Senate -
Committee on Criminal Justice:
Q: There are some pretty tight regulations on what you do with
information on juveniles, and--would you just address that? Are we
going to run into some problems?
A: What this is going to do, it’s going to amend the Family
Code, those restrictions, so it’ll allow it. It also is going to amend the
Education Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. And it has
P. 1565
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 5 (DM-294)
provisions for wntidentiality with regard to that information that
would be given to the school districts, the superintendent or the
principal or their designated person to receive that information.2
Hearings on H.B. 23 Before the Senate Comm. on Grim. Just., 73d Leg. (h4ay 11, 1993)
(tape available from Senate StatT Services) (footnote added).
We believe that a narrow interpretation of article 15.27, permitting only the report
that a student has been arrested for a crime within the scope of subsection (h) of the
article, without further explanation, would be of little assistance to a school. Subsection
(h) includes the following offenses: murder, capital murder, aggravated kidnapping,
sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated sex~&assault, injury to a child or elderly
individual, arson, robbeq, aggravated robbery, burglary, certain violations of the
Controlled Substances Act, terroristic threat, unlawtkl possession of certain weapons or
devices, and organized crhninaJ activity. See Code Crim. Proc. art. 1527th). The mere
fact of an arrest would provide little help&l information to the school because article
15.27 wvers a great variety of crimes and the school’s wurses of action to maintain a safe
enviromnent conducive to learning would vary greatly depending on the type of alleged
crinkl activity and the identification of actual and potential victims. A cautious school
administrator might assume every possible offense and might take multiple unnecessary
actions in regard to the student, in spite of the provision in subsection (g) of article 15.27
that the “school official may take the precautions necessary to prevent tkther violence
but may not penalike a student solely because. a notification is received about the student.”
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that article 15.27 authorixes a law
enforcement agency to wmmunicate to the proper school official the nature of the charges
against an arrested or detained student, the identities of any alleged victims who are
students or school personnel, and all other information about the arrest or detention of a
student that will enable the school official to take appropriate action to prevent violence,
protect students and school personnel, and further educational purposes.
2Artick provides,in part, as follows:
15.27(f) “A person
who receives
information
underthis
article
may notdisclose
theinformationexcept asspecifically
authorized
bythis
article.”
We notethat
the
provisions
ofFERF’Agivinga student’sparents access
totheshdent’s
“education
records”
may limit
the
scope
ofthiseontidentiaiity
provision.
p. 1566
Honorable Carl E. Lewis - Page 6 (DM-294)
SUMMARY
Article 15.27 of the Code of CriminaJ Procedure authorizes a
law enforcement agency to wnmnmicate to the proper school official
the nature of the charges against an arrested or detained student, the
identities of any alleged ktims who are students or school
personnel, and all other information about the arrest or detention of a
student that will enable the school official to take appropriate action
to prevent violence, protect students and school personnel, and
further educational purposes.
DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas
JORGE VEGA
Fii Assistant Attorney General
DREW DURHAM
Deputy Attorney General for Crinrinal Justice
WJLL PRYOR
Special Counsel
RENEA HICKS
State Solicitor
SARAH J. SHJRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee
Prepared by James B. Pinson
As&ant Attorney General
P. 1567